Christian Women, Are You Causing Men to Sin?

[Harry3142]

As Christians we've been given tasks to carry out, such as those listed in Matthew 25:31-46. If our minds are focussed on those tasks our energies will also be focussed on completing those tasks. And there's enough need around us so that if we work at its alleviation conscientiously, we simply will not have the inclination or the time for those thoughts and actions that don't conform to Christian standards.

 

[Alive_Again]

It is obvious that you haven't experienced demonic oppression in an area of your flesh (that you're aware of).

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

I want to make a somewhat bizarre shot at a bid for discussion. I'm going to state my hypothesis/theory/belief and anyone may counter it if they like. So here we go:

Physical modesty is relative to the surroundings.

This is why I say this: The first time I saw a Muslim woman was when I was 16. Going by her clothing (a black dress topped with the black hajib and a black opaque veil) she was Saudi, and had in tow behind her a gaggle of small children. Needless to say I stared at her as the bus I was traveling in passed her by.
Ironically, this Saudi woman, in an attempt to be modest, actually drew more attention to herself than if she had worn a long sleeved shirt, and a long skirt with the head scarf. If modesty is NOT drawing attention to yourself physically then she was more immodest than a woman who wears short skirts and a low top.

I'm also prone to think about modesty issues in a nudist colony. Is it immodest in a nudist colony to wear clothes simply because that singles you out of the crowd and places attention on you? But that's kind of a farcical whimsy...

So...Discuss Comrades, Discuss!

 

[Johnnz]

Firstly, modesty is far broader than just the sexual. It's an inner attitude that can be evidenced in many areas of life.

There is a relative factor. A devout Muslim would see an average American church service as virtually pornographic with the amount of human flesh on display by 'modest' women. Although there are cultural and social factors, our responsibility is to live out of biblically founded values, and these may well conflict with many cultural customs.

As some basis a biblical basis would include:
Seeing the human body as good - all of it. Our God created us with bodies and took one Himself in Jesus
Shame therefore must not be the default position regarding our bodies (a massive challenge to the body beautiful industry is needed here) especially related to human sexuality
We respect social customs but are not unthinkingly bound by them. Some may need changing in light of the above. How many women today would agree that showing an ankle is immodest?
There is a huge difference between sexual provocation and merely being attractive. Nudists are not overtly provocative just by being naked.

John
NZ

 

[Alive_Again]

Shame therefore must not be the default position regarding our bodies (a massive challenge to the body beautiful industry is needed here) especially related to human sexuality

Our bodies are not shameful in any way. However, in our "knowledge of good and evil" conditions, we are no longer in a position of remaining this way outside of your own home, and that within the confines of privacy.

There is a huge difference between sexual provocation and merely being attractive. Nudists are not overtly provocative just by being naked.

Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
1 Cor 12:22-26

It's all about context. Outside of your own God allowed domain, in good conscience. Regardless of our God created bodies. Out of proper context, nakedness is a shame. He intended this to be. Even God wears clothes.

For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will deliver thee into the hand of them whom thou hatest, into the hand of them from whom thy mind is alienated: And they shall deal with thee hatefully, and shall take away all thy labour, and shall leave thee naked and bare: and the nakedness of thy whoredoms shall be discovered, both thy lewdness and thy whoredoms.
Ezek 23:28-29

Say ye unto your brethren, Ammi; and to your sisters, Ruhamah. Plead with your mother, plead: for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband: let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts; Lest I strip her naked, and set her as in the day that she was born, and make her as a wilderness, and set her like a dry land, and slay her with thirst.
Hosea 2:1-3

Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;
1 Cor 4:11

And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.
Acts 19:14-16

Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.
John 21:7

And they all forsook him, and fled. And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.
Mark 14:50-52

Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
Matt 25:44-45

Pass ye away, thou inhabitant of Saphir, having thy shame naked: the inhabitant of Zaanan came not forth in the mourning of Bethezel; he shall receive of you his standing.
Micah 1:11

For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
2 Cor 5:1-3

Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
Rev 16:15

Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Rev 3:17-18

 

[Johnnz]

Our bodies are not shameful in any way. However, in our "knowledge of good and evil" conditions, we are no longer in a position of remaining this way outside of your own home, and that within the confines of privacy.

There is no biblical basis for this position, common as it is. If the clothing of skin is a divine mandate for humanity not to be naked then God clothed the couple ie it was wrong for married people to see each other naked.

But it also ignores the NT Theme of a restored creation which has begun and will finally be fulfilled in wondrous measure when Jesus returns. Thus, Jesus salvation reaches back to undo the effects of the fall. Shame belongs to unredeemed humanity as a consequence of sin. As new creations we are freed from that yoke. And the covering of skin is a symbol of salvation anyway, not a teaching about what to wear.

Nakedness is used to express shame. But its not as much nakedness itself but that nakedness was a consequence of sinful behaviour that was the point made in those scriptures. The naked prophets (in Saul's time and later as commanded for Isaiah) show that God is not always opposed to nakedness. In NT times Jewish baptisms were conducted naked and thus John and Jesus were most likely naked then. Roman society was extremely sexually explicit, people worked often naked, there was naked bathing, and no personal privacy as we know it today. Yes nothing in the NT condemns what must have been regular exposure to the sight of the unclothed human body. Intercourse could be public during after diner sexual activity amongst the better off, and with large families living in one or two rooms intercourse could not have been that private either.

In times past Christians have painted nudes and both and commissioned appreciated such art. Luther had a close friend who painted nudes, sometimes using his wife as the model, as did Durer, another Christian.

John
NZ

 

[Alive_Again]

There is no biblical basis for this position, common as it is. If the clothing of skin is a divine mandate for humanity not to be naked then God clothed the couple ie it was wrong for married people to see each other naked.

This is why the context that is important. You could talk about sexual details of a man and wife in court and it would seem shameful. It wouldn't be, but it's not intended for public approval.

But it also ignores the NT Theme of a restored creation which has begun and will finally be fulfilled in wondrous measure when Jesus returns.

Man was restored to fellowship in the NT, but we still have the knowledge of good and evil. We also still have our sinful flesh nature. Our carnal man is in opposition to God. Consequently, we don't have the innocent depiction of the garden of Eden that we had in Genesis.

Intercourse could be public during after diner sexual activity amongst the better off, and with large families living in one or two rooms intercourse could not have been that private either.

This is the world. Intercourse was never intended to be public. Even in OT days, you were not supposed to look upon the nakedness of your father, mother, sister, etc.

Thus, Jesus salvation reaches back to undo the effects of the fall.

We are only this way "in Him". We can go in and out of walking in the Spirit or the flesh depending on how you live.

Shame belongs to unredeemed humanity as a consequence of sin. As new creations we are freed from that yoke.

True. We're to be found clothed. It's a constant throughout the NT.

Nakedness is used to express shame.

Nakedness out of proper context is a shame. It's no shame to bathe or shower nude. It's expected for the union of man and woman to be that way. That's where God intended it to be. Outside of that, it is a shame.
Peter fished naked. (They usually fished at night.) Notice how he girded himself before he went to meet the Lord.

The naked prophets (in Saul's time and later as commanded for Isaiah) show that God is not always opposed to nakedness.

I believe the nakedness was a statement made by God to His people. It wasn't a freedom or liberty. If there is a mystery in there somewhere it's not mentioned. It IS mentioned in the NT, that we are to be found clothed. It's possible to not know you're unclothed in the spirit, and it is shameful.

Yes nothing in the NT condemns what must have been regular exposure to the sight of the unclothed human body.

This was a punishment.

...Lest I strip her naked, and set her as in the day that she was born, Hosea 2
...and make her as a wilderness, and set her like a dry land, and slay her with thirst. Hosea 2

The evil spirits shamed them and left them naked.

...And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them Acts 19
...and overcame them, and prevailed against them Acts 19
...so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded Acts 19

Apparently this was within acceptable behavior...

...when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.
John 21:7

This was out of context and shameful...

...and the young men laid hold on him: Mark 14
...And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked. Mark 14

Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked
Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you,
Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these,
ye did it not to me.
Matt 25:44-45

...Pass ye away, thou inhabitant of Saphir Micah 1
...having thy shame naked Micah 1

...For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven 2 Cor 5
...If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked 2 Cor 5

Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments Rev 16
lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. Rev 16

and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable
and poor, and blind, and naked
I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich;
and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed,
and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear
and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Rev 3:17-18

He couldn't tell that he wasn't clothed. His nakedness was shameful.

We're supposed to be clothed with humility, honour, the armor of God, the robe of righteousness. God wants His people clothed in fine linen.

With food and raiment we are to be satisfied.

God is clothed. The angels are clothed. The saints are clothed. He wants all of His redeemed people clothed, and not found to be naked.

Intercourse could be public during after diner sexual activity amongst the better off, and with large families living in one or two rooms intercourse could not have been that private either.

This is the world. Intercourse was never intended to be public. Even in OT days, you were not supposed to look upon the nakedness of your father, mother, sister, etc.

 

[Johnnz]

"This is why the context that is important. You could talk about sexual details of a man and wife in court and it would seem shameful. It wouldn't be, but it's not intended for public approval."

Sorry but I don't get your point. My point was that if God clothed the couple because nakedness was wrong post fall, then its wrong for a married couple to see each other naked, as they could only have been ashamed of being naked with each other at that time. The obvious point from that story was they were ashamed of their sin before God, not their bodies, and God graciously took steps to make ongoing relationship with Him possible.

This is the world. Intercourse was never intended to be public. Even in OT days, you were not supposed to look upon the nakedness of your father, mother, sister, etc.

That is assumption only from within a post fall mindset. God is Trinity; there is utter openness between all members. Humanity made in God's image was to have the same openness with the Godhead, and with each other. There would be no shame in an unfallen society. Sex was pure and without shame. There would be no privacy or isolated individuality as we know those terms today. Therefore, it is more than probable that intercourse would not have been a purely private activity.

The nakedness of parents etc refers to sexual intercourse, not nakedness. That is well accepted.

Man was restored to fellowship in the NT, but we still have the knowledge of good and evil. We also still have our sinful flesh nature. Our carnal man is in opposition to God.

Again, that is just not true. Jesus is our access to His Father through the Holy Spirit. That replaces our previous state of 'flesh'. The term 'flesh' does not refer to an inner entity. Rather, it describes the collective condition of all of humanity outside of the life of Christ. We do not have a sinful flesh nature as you stated - Yes I have read Romans 7.

We are only this way "in Him". We can go in and out of walking in the Spirit or the flesh depending on how you live.

We must not confuse what Christ achieved with our own participation in that. But we must live in the clear understanding that the initial paradigms of Eden form the basis of what we are being restored to. Thus, shame cannot be accepted as a basis for our morality, but belongs to the fallen life from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, whereas Jesus is now the source of our life.

Nakedness out of proper context is a shame. It's no shame to bathe or shower nude. It's expected for the union of man and woman to be that way. That's where God intended it to be. Outside of that, it is a shame.
Peter fished naked. (They usually fished at night.) Notice how he girded himself before he went to meet the Lord.

The context here is that public nakedness was not shameful. It was in fact common for working class people to work wholly or partially naked. Peter and the others would have been working naked when Jesus called them to follow Him. Peter put on his outer garment because he had to swim, not because he was ashamed. You try swimming holding a heavy garment in one hand.

I believe the nakedness was a statement made by God to His people. It wasn't a freedom or liberty. If there is a mystery in there somewhere it's not mentioned. It IS mentioned in the NT, that we are to be found clothed. It's possible to not know you're unclothed in the spirit, and it is shameful

So, did God ask them to do something sinful? In the NT we are to be clothed with Christ's righteousness (put on Christ). And, we don't walk in and out of the Spirit. We are living in the age of the Spirit. To walk out of God's Spirit would be to walk out on the Father and Jesus too. That's nowhere taught in the NT.

John
NZ

 

[Alive_Again]

So your whole premise that "allows" your take on nakedness is based on a restored "Garden of Eden" mentality, before sin had taken place...

"This is why the context that is important."

Sorry but I don't get your point.

My point was that if God clothed the couple because nakedness was wrong post fall, then its wrong for a married couple to see each other naked, as they could only have been ashamed of being naked with each other at that time.

It's not wrong because that is in the proper context.

"Intercourse was never intended to be public".

That is assumption only from within a post fall mindset.

"Man was restored to fellowship in the NT, but we still have the knowledge of good and evil. We also still have our sinful flesh nature. Our carnal man is in opposition to God."

Again, that is just not true. Jesus is our access to His Father through the Holy Spirit.

You don't think we know right and wrong any more? It would be wrong of you to waltz into church in the buff. All of the regenerate in the congregation "post fall" would know that would be wrong.

That replaces our previous state of 'flesh'.

Although Jesus paid for our healing, our flesh man will still age and finally die. The man in the garden would not have died. Death is not of God. If we live according to our flesh, our inner man will die.

We do not have a sinful flesh nature as you stated - Yes I have read Romans 7.

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
Romans 8:3-4

Notice that he's talking to Christians in these scriptures.

"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh...is not of the Father, but is of the world."
1 John 2:16

"For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh..."
2 Peter 2:18

"But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness,"
2 Peter 2:10

There are 2 paths in God's sight. The (sinful) flesh and the Spirit. Walking in the Spirit is walking in the will of God (Jesus is Lord).

"That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God."
1 Peter 4:2

When you're walking after the (sinful) flesh, you're not Christs.

"And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."
Gal 5:24

When you're walking after the (sinful) flesh, you sow to the flesh and reap corruption (not of Christ)

"For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting."
Gal 6:8

"This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would"
Gal 5:16-17

If you're not led of the Spirit, you're under Law!

"But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."
Gal 5:18-21

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."
1 Cor 15:50

"Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God."
2 Cor 7:1

"But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof."
Romans 13:14

"Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."
Romans 8:12-13

That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8o then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Romans 8:4-8

You are either "in Christ" or "in the flesh". Jesus is the door. He said He'd never leave, but if you are not "in Christ", you are not a temple of God. Your being "in Christ" is conditional on at least an acceptable level of obedience to His Lordship.

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."
Romans 8:9

"So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."
Romans 7:25

"For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."
Romans 7:18-20

But we must live in the clear understanding that the initial paradigms of Eden form the basis of what we are being restored to.

That's a paradigm, but not reality. We still know good and evil. We still have an evil flesh nature that wants to walk contrary to God. You must choose to walk in the Spirit, or you're not His. When we do, we're clothed with a robe of righteousness. The unrighteous "walk" naked. This has nothing to do with your lawful expression of nudity before your wife, or alone, or even within other limitations.

Peter put on his outer garment because he had to swim, not because he was ashamed. You try swimming holding a heavy garment in one hand.

It's probably easier to swim without a "garment". Not that it would be about shame, but that it is proper to appear before someone in society clothed. This is common sense. You'll find that is a norm even in the regenerate church.

And, we don't walk in and out of the Spirit.

When you're walking in an acceptable measure of obedience to Jesus, you are in unity with His Spirit and are "in Christ". He is the door. When Jesus is Lord, He knows you. When you walk in darkness, He doesn't. We know that He "knows" everyone since He made us. He doesn't fellowship with sinners. Your salvation is based on that unity. You're being in Him puts you in unity with His death and resurrection. Apart from that is judgment.

 

[Johnnz]

My post #230 made two points related to the topic of the thread. You have taken up on one of them. Fair enough. But the thread is not about nakedness per se and thus I won't respond further on that topic.

You have also made statements that would involve doctrinal debate (what are the meanings of flesh in the NT and which one is relevant to your main argument, what is the scope of salvation, do we have two natures, and can we see Jesus as offering us the tree of life from which to draw.) That's far way off topic and scope of this thread.

John
NZ

 

[Alive_Again]

You have also made statements that would involve doctrinal debate (what are the meanings of flesh in the NT and which one is relevant to your main argument, what is the scope of salvation, do we have two natures, and can we see Jesus as offering us the tree of life from which to draw.) That's far way off topic and scope of this thread.

I haven't heard anything about the "tree of life" in the New Testament. That would be off topic. As far as the flesh goes, I would think that would be common sense because your inward man wants to follow God. Your body wants to do its own thing. It might be off topic as far as the nudity thing goes. It's a point well considered about the flesh and sowing to it puts you in a place of peril.

In the overall perspective of woman causing men to sin by not covering their bodies carefully, it points to the fact that we have a flesh nature that wants to please itself. Men in particular are somewhat vulnerable to what presents itself in our "eye gates". It would be loving of women to be considerate of their brothers, who are made to admire the feminine form, to be mindful of our desire to put Jesus first, and clothe themselves more carefully so as not to cause some of us to fall. It's the enemy that comes in and he uses these very things to destroy us.

 

[Johnnz]

OK. But, off thread topic, we don't have a flesh nature. If you want to follow up on that open another thread and let me know where it is.

John
NZ

 

[Catherineanne]

Here is another way of looking at this issue. The naked human body is not something to be ashamed of. The reason we cover it up is not because it is shameful, but because certain parts are holy. The holier they are, the more they are covered.

In this context, the uncovering of that which is holy is more understandable. A father's nakedness ought to be holy to his children, because they were procreated from it. Therefore, in honour of that holiness, they should refrain from looking at their father's naked body.

This is consistent with man not being able to look upon God. The reason for this is not that God is shameful, but that he is too holy to look upon.

Women must decide for themselves which parts of their body are 'ordinary' and can be seen, and which parts are 'holy' and set apart for their husband or close relatives. There is no definitive answer to this, because cultures vary, but to regard this as an issue of shame is, I think, a huge mistake. The reason Adam and Eve felt shame at their nakedness was because they realised for the first time that it was inappropriate. This does not mean that the nakedness itself was actually shameful.

 

[shinbits]

Here is another way of looking at this issue. The naked human body is not something to be ashamed of. The reason we cover it up is not because it is shameful, but because certain parts are holy. The holier they are, the more they are covered.

In this context, the uncovering of that which is holy is more understandable. A father's nakedness ought to be holy to his children, because they were procreated from it. Therefore, in honour of that holiness, they should refrain from looking at their father's naked body.

This is consistent with man not being able to look upon God. The reason for this is not that God is shameful, but that he is too holy to look upon.

Women must decide for themselves which parts of their body are 'ordinary' and can be seen, and which parts are 'holy' and set apart for their husband or close relatives. There is no definitive answer to this, because cultures vary, but to regard this as an issue of shame is, I think, a huge mistake. The reason Adam and Eve felt shame at their nakedness was because they realised for the first time that it was inappropriate. This does not mean that the nakedness itself was actually shameful.

I think a woman's mouth is holy, and should be covered up at all times.

 

[Catherineanne]

I think a woman's mouth is holy, and should be covered up at all times.

There is more than one way to disclose the profane. As Our Lord says, it is not that which enters into a man that defileth a man, but that which issues from his mouth. His words, that is.

Good luck with that.

 

[Alive_Again]

Here is another way of looking at this issue. The naked human body is not something to be ashamed of. The reason we cover it up is not because it is shameful, but because certain parts are holy. The holier they are, the more they are covered.

Interesting perspective. We are bone of His bone, and flesh of His flesh.

Women must decide for themselves which parts of their body are 'ordinary' and can be seen, and which parts are 'holy' and set apart for their husband or close relatives.

Within most cultures it is pretty obvious. Only in the more "primitive" cultures do women go topless. Those are cultures where Christianity is rare or nonexistant.

...but to regard this as an issue of shame is, I think, a huge mistake. The reason Adam and Eve felt shame at their nakedness was because it was inappropriate. Not because it was actually shameful.

I think the inappropriateness was what was shameful.

We have the link between the two in scripture.

Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
Rev 16:15

Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Rev 3:17-18

 

[shinbits]

There is more than one way to disclose the profane. As Our Lord says, it is not that which enters into a man that defileth a man, but that which issues from his mouth. His words, that is.

Good luck with that.

1 Cor 14:34:

"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak;"

Shut your holy hole.

 

[Catherineanne]

1 Cor 14:34:

"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak;"

Shut your holy hole.

Nice try, but I am not in church, I am in my own home.

There is no injunction to prevent me speaking in my own home.

I suggest you get over it, therefore.

 

[Johnnz]

My responses are in bold.

Interesting perspective. We are bone of His bone, and flesh of His flesh.

What do you mean by this? That's not there in Genesis applying to God.

Within most cultures it is pretty obvious. Only in the more "primitive" cultures do women go topless. Those are cultures where Christianity is rare or nonexistant.

What a cultural mindset you come from. That harks back to the days of colonialism. In our country that would be deemed racially offensive.

John
NZ

 

[shinbits]

Nice try, but I am not in church, I am in my own home.

There is no injunction to prevent me speaking in my own home.

I suggest you get over it, therefore.

Let me appoligize, I'm being needlessly mean.

I completely take offense that women must change their behavior, lest they be blamed for something men do. As someone else already said, that's why women wear burkas in some countries. They must be burdened for the lack of self-control in men, and that's not right.

So I took issue with the hole "some parts are holy" aspect of your post. I'm pretty sure you believe breasts are among those "holy" parts that should be covered up; yet, a man's chest is perfectly okay to display. Lately, I've come to think some double-standards just shouldn't exist, and wanted to make you think about the logic of saying "we must choose what parts are holy". I think it's just an excuse to blame the other for our own sins.

Still, I was a complete jerk for trying to make my point this way, and I apoligize. Sarcasm can be completely useless and counter-productive at times.

Anyway, God bless. Women are the best things God's ever made.